Suppr超能文献

冷圈套内镜黏膜切除术与热圈套内镜黏膜切除术治疗小大肠息肉的比较:一项随机对照试验。

Comparison of cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University of Korea, 1 Singil-ro, Yeoungdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07441, South Korea.

Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 2;14(1):20335. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71067-1.

Abstract

Incomplete resection rates vary among endoscopists performing cold snare polypectomy. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) is the technique of cold resection after submucosal injection to reduce incomplete resection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR for small colorectal polyps compared to hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR). Preplanned sample size required 70 polyps to CS-EMR group or HS-EMR group, respectively. Patients with polyps sized 6-9 mm were randomly allocated to either the CS-EMR or the HS-EMR group. The primary outcome was residual or recurrent adenoma (RAA) rate. A total of 70 and 68 polyps were resected using CS-EMR and HS-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the RAA rate was 0% in the CS-EMR group and 1.5% in the HS-EMR group (risk difference [RD], - 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 4.34 to 1.39). En bloc resection rate was 98.6% and 98.5% (RD, - 0.04; 95% CI - 4.12 to 4.02); the R0 resection rate was 55.7% and 82.4% (RD, - 27.80; 95% CI - 42.50 to  - 13.10). The total procedure time was 172 s (IQR, 158-189) in the CS-EMR group and 186 s (IQR, 147-216) in the HS-EMR group (median difference, - 14; 95% CI - 32 to 2). Delayed bleeding was 2.9% vs 1.5% (RD, 1.37; 95% CI - 3.47 to 6.21) in both groups, respectively. CS-EMR was non-inferior to HS-EMR for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. CS-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps sized 6-9 mm.

摘要

行冷圈套息肉切除术的内镜医生之间的不完全切除率有所不同。冷圈套内镜黏膜切除术(CS-EMR)是在黏膜下注射后进行冷切除以减少不完全切除的技术。本研究旨在评估 CS-EMR 治疗小的结直肠息肉与热圈套内镜黏膜切除术(HS-EMR)的疗效和安全性。计划样本量要求 CS-EMR 组或 HS-EMR 组分别为 70 个息肉。大小为 6-9mm 的息肉患者被随机分配至 CS-EMR 组或 HS-EMR 组。主要结局是残留或复发腺瘤(RAA)率。分别用 CS-EMR 和 HS-EMR 切除了 70 个和 68 个息肉。在意向治疗人群中,CS-EMR 组的 RAA 率为 0%,HS-EMR 组为 1.5%(风险差 [RD],-1.47;95%置信区间 [CI],-4.34 至 1.39)。整块切除率分别为 98.6%和 98.5%(RD,-0.04;95% CI,-4.12 至 4.02);R0 切除率分别为 55.7%和 82.4%(RD,-27.80;95% CI,-42.50 至-13.10)。CS-EMR 组的总手术时间为 172s(IQR,158-189),HS-EMR 组为 186s(IQR,147-216)(中位数差,-14;95% CI,-32 至 2)。两组延迟性出血率分别为 2.9%和 1.5%(RD,1.37;95% CI,-3.47 至 6.21)。CS-EMR 治疗小的结直肠息肉不劣于 HS-EMR。CS-EMR 可被视为治疗 6-9mm 结直肠息肉的标准方法之一。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/284c/11369165/c6817e0892c5/41598_2024_71067_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验